[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning everyone. Here we go again. It's a Supreme Court decision day and the rulings come down at 10:00 AM which is now. The legal-- Okay, it's 9:59. It's almost ten o'clock. The Legal Affairs Bureau of The Brian Lehrer Show, that's our producer, Amina Srna today, our Legal Affairs bureau is keeping her eye on their feed for the major decisions we're awaiting on student loan forgiveness, affirmative action, and college admissions, denying business services to gay customers and more. We will let you know if anything comes down in these coming minutes if anything does.

We will also have Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation standing by. He'll read through whatever decision comes down if there's a big one, and he will join us later in the show. Meanwhile, if you live in New York State, happy Primary Day. Every New York City council seat is up for election this year. The DA positions in Queens and the Bronx, Mayor of Yonkers, Mount Vernon, New Rochelle. There are other elections in Westchester on Long Island. There's a Republican primary for Suffolk County Legislature, even a Working Families Party primary for Southampton Town Justice plus various judgeships.

Also, the kinds of party positions that no one but the most involved election nerds tend to even know what they are like member of the county committee and delegate to the judicial convention sometimes with a long list of names and instructions like, vote for any eight. You've seen those. You've got plenty of choices for plenty of things. If you think democracy has ghosted us, who you're going to call? WNYC Senior Politics Reporter and Resident Democracy wonk, Brigid Bergin. Her latest articles on our local news website, Gothamist, include who's running in the June primary in New York City, and it's the secret sauce. Trusted community groups drive up New York City voter turnout report finds. Hey, Brigid. Happy Primary Day.

Brigid Bergin: Happy primary day, Brian. I was so hoping you were going to introduce me as one of those election nerds because that's the title that I love to wear. I'll take democracy wonk too. It's a good primary day. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: Election nerd and democracy wonk. I'd say you're both. Listeners, because some of you are too, as we do on this show, if it's election day, it's our informal, unofficial, thoroughly unscientific election day exit poll. Electioneering, welcome here. Call up and say who you're voting for in any race. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Why do we do this? Not to tip the scales in favor of whoever's got an active supporter who wants to call up the show, but just because it helps continue a conversation about races that a lot of people don't know about.

Maybe we'll get some last-minute voting out of the deal, but who are you voting for in any race? Or ask Brigid a question about any race in the city. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. You can also text to that number and we'll watch our texts go by. Brigid, first of all, until a few years ago, New York Primary Day used to be on the week after Labor Day. Now here it is moved to the last Tuesday in June. Why is that?

Brigid Bergin: When we first moved the primary to June, it was just the federal primary. We had congressional primaries in June, and that was connected to the amount of time it would take to get military ballots out and returned. Then making sure that that window was sufficient. Then the state legislature decided to consolidate all of the primaries because as you recall, at one point we had congressional primaries in June, and then we also had a set of state legislative primaries in September. They have now moved all of the primary elections to June. I think in some respects, it's taken some getting used to, but it's good for voters to have as many elections at the same time as possible. That is why we are going out to vote in June once again.

Brian Lehrer: Although, I guess we could raise a question as to which is the best day to consolidate all the primaries on because school is out already in most places in the state, people probably don't have politics top of mind when it's 80 degrees outside and they're planning or going on their summer vacations. Unless they're really engaged. The kind of Brigid Bergin democracy wonk we were talking about. How is turnout expected to be, if there's any good comparison with the September dates of the past?

Brigid Bergin: Brian, it is so hard to compare this election to really any other. I will say, just point blank, turnout is expected to be low in this election. This is a race, this is what they would call an off-cycle election, an off-year election. Traditionally, you do not see the kind of turnout during primary elections in general, and certainly primaries and off-year elections as compared to presidential election years or gubernatorial election years where you have statewide races. That is not a good thing. That means that ultimately these races will likely be decided by a very small, as you said, extremely engaged set of voters.

It's also an incentive if you're listening to me now and you haven't gone out to vote and you can, to participate because your vote has a lot of weight. You may be part of what decides a very close contest. Turnout right at this point, we did some analysis. We actually have a map up on our website, Gothamist. I worked with my colleague Neil Meta, to map out the results of turnout in early voting and a big chunk of the absentee ballots. They changed the absentee ballot law recently, Brian, and so now the Board of Elections can actually open and canvas some of those absentee ballots in advance.

We can actually know how many have come in, and so we know where the votes have come in so far. They are not counted, I should clarify until primary day. We know where the votes have been coming in so far. Not surprisingly, some of the races that we expected to see higher turnout in that Ninth Council district race up in Harlem leads the way, but some of the other ones that we've been watching are also among the races with higher turnout.

Brian Lehrer: All right. We're actually going to come back if we have time later to the issue of turnout and your story on a study that showed certain ways of increasing turnout at the neighborhood level tend to be effective. Let's talk about some of these races and see which ones people call in on. Some of these ones that you've singled out, which are three New York City council races that are especially competitive. District 1 in lower Manhattan, District 9 in Harlem, and District 43 in Sunset Park, Borough Park, and Bensonhurst. Let's take them in order. Lower Manhattan has a freshman council member, Christopher Marte running for re-election. Who is he and why is he getting primaried?

Brigid Bergin: Christopher Marte, as you said, is a freshman incumbent member of the Progressive Caucus, and he is facing the strongest challenge from two of the three other names on the ballot, Ursila Jung and Susan Lee. They have actually cross-endorsed each other, urging voters to rank them first and second as part of really a strategy to defeat Marte. Some of the issues that we hear in this race are issues that we are hearing across the city. Issues with affordable housing, issues with public safety. In particular, an issue in this race, the NoHo rezoning. Marte has been a proponent of more affordable housing in that rezoning process.

I think there's some concern from the candidates who are running really to his right, that something needs to happen or maybe nothing will happen. The issue of closing Rikers is another issue that the candidates have differed on. Marte is a big proponent of seeing Rikers Island closed, has some concerns about the development of what would be a borough-based jail in that lower Manhattan area, but both Lee and Jung talk about really focusing on retraining members of the Department of Correction and improving the conditions at Rikers as opposed to actually closing it.

It's very interesting to watch and part of the reason why we are seeing Marte challenged is the reason why we're talking about all of these council races, and that's redistricting and the fact that all 51 city council districts were redrawn because of the most recent census, and that the members who were elected two years ago all have to run again because of these new lines. When there's an opportunity to run, particularly in an area where people have a lot of concerns, a lot of issues, then you see people jumping in. Susan Lee ran in 2021 also, but I think this will be an interesting race to watch because it's been competitive. You've seen these candidates really going after each other and raising a decent amount of money.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a voter in that district and in that race calling in. Greg in Chinatown, you're on WNYC. Hi, Greg, happy Primary Day.

Greg: Hi there. I wanted to call and say that I think that-- I'm a pretty far-left Democrat, but I do believe that things have just become too permissive in New York City with so much minor offenses not being held accountable. I believe that Susan Lee is a good combination of being compassionate, but also wants to hold people a little bit more accountable. I think I'm going to vote for Susan Lee over Christopher Marte in District 1.

Brian Lehrer: Okay. In your case, when you talk about too permissive on small things, do you think you see it in your neighborhood in terms of quality-of-life items that you can put your finger on? Or is it more just, this is the way you think about things?

Greg: Well, I've been here for 30 years, and I know that the crime was significantly worse in the late '80s and '90s. I do think that what we're dealing with is much more of a mental health crisis on the streets than it is an increase in crime, that absolutely if you see so many e-bikes whizzing around and getting on the sidewalk, especially in my area where there's a lot of seniors, and sometimes when you watch just a flow of people going over the turnstile or going to the emergency gate, it just seems like-- There was a Rite Aid in my neighborhood that had to close because of so many people shoplifting.

There was a recent bail switch that Governor Hochul signed a few months ago that gives a judge discretion now to hold people if they've committed a minor offense over and over, and Susan Lee strongly supports that, whereas Christopher Marte still believes that if it's a minor offense, the judge should let people go. I just think it's time to be a little bit more common sense Democrat.

Brian Lehrer: Got you, Greg, thank you very much. Christopher Marte voters also welcome to call in or those for the third candidate in the race. Here's an opinion just in from the Supreme Court. It's in a case called Countermine vs. Colorado. This is a seven-to-two decision. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion and it's about stalking from the website SCOTUSblog, which hundreds of journalists are probably watching right now because that's sort of the go-to site for watching the Supreme Court decisions come out, SCOTUSblog. It's about what constitutes a true threat.

Brigid, this is interesting to me, not one of the cases I've been following closely, but I'm reading the text here and thinking, "God, someday this could apply to a Daniel Penny appeal in the chokehold killing of Jordan Neely." SCOTUSblog says the court holds that-- It's about when words can be taken as, "a true threat", and the defendant in the case they tell us is Billy Countermine, who was sentenced to four and a half years in prison for stalking after he sent Facebook messages to a local musician that left her feeling extremely scared. Countermine contends that to determine whether speech is a true threat, courts must consider the speaker's intent.

The state, by contrast, argues that courts should apply an objective test that looks at whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence. The court held that a mental state of recklessness is enough. The state must show according to the majority of opinion that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. The state need not prove any more demanding subjective intent to threaten another.

I know you're not here as a legal analyst, but this is a really interesting ruling. It upholds, I think, a relatively more conservative position on these, although it was seven-to-two and the majority opinion written by Justice Kagan. You don't have to intend to threaten somebody, you just have to be doing something that can be judged as reckless because somebody might perceive it as a threat. Pretty interesting ruling.

Brigid Bergin: Yes. I think you make the connection to that incident that most New Yorkers have really in the front of their minds when Jordan Neely was killed on the subway car, which, incidentally, was also in the First City Council district that we've been talking about at that Broadway-Lafayette stop.

Brian Lehrer: Good point.

Brigid Bergin: Language, like you described, may factor into any legal defense from Daniel Penny. Just connected you back to our council conversation I think that incident is something that contributes to what the previous caller was talking about in terms of the perception of public safety in the area.

Certainly, I think the fallout from the Supreme Court decision and how it trickles down to lower courts will be something to watch, but also the extent to which we hear voters reflecting upon what it is that drew them out to the polls, and was it something like the death of Jordan Neely from the perspective of whether or not we are caring for the neediest New Yorkers and providing the type of mental health services they need, or whether or not, someone like Daniel Penny could perceive the language used by someone like Jordan Neely as a threat? It's going to be very, very important and interesting to watch going forward.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Since you mentioned that this case did happen in that First City Council district, and the caller was talking about supporting Susan Lee over Christopher Marte because he's a little more conservative on cracking down on things like fair vetting and other, what's considered low-level quality of life crimes. Did Daniel Penny chokehold case become an issue in this race, as far as you know?

Brigid Bergin: I'm not sure how much that particular case has become a topic in this race, but I do know that it's fair to say that the candidates that are the strongest challengers to Marte, are really running to his right, and do talk about public safety in a different way than we have heard over recent years some of the people who are in the more progressive wing of the current city council talk about it. There is this notion that when we get to the other side of this primary, and then really, ultimately the other side of the general election, November when we know who will be holding these seats, will this be a message to the left wing of the City Council? Will it moderate some of the stances that they take or will reinforce this notion that the council might serve as a check on the mayor who tends to be a more moderate lawmaker?

Brian Lehrer: Let's take one more call because we have one more call coming in on that lower Manhattan Chinatown area, City Council primary today, and then we're going to move on. David in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, David. Thanks for calling.

David: Thank you so much for taking my call. Can you hear me?

Brian Lehrer: I can.

David: I wanted to comment that there was this Howard Hughes development that's been in the paper. Really, what's never said about it is that there's not a real great resale market. Should they build these properties, it's going to be hard to sell them at the $2,000-a-foot range. I'm a real estate agent, so I know these things, but Marte is against it. I've done a lot of business in Southbridge and Southbridge hired a lawyer, and it was amazing that they got the City Council to approve it. I feel like the people opposing him are just throwing anything at the wall, but their only real interest is getting Howard Hughes's building built.

Brian Lehrer: Is that in the NoHo redevelopment?

David: It's not part of the same rezoning, but it's a specific project that's been green-lit. Howard Hughes has put-- The company has put so much money into the Pier 17 development, and it's a separate item, but they already have the zoning if they can get the variance unblocked.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. Anything on that particular development? Obviously, of neighborhood-level concern. It maybe has implications for how developments go forward city-wide. Is this one you're on, Brigid?

Brigid Bergin: This isn't one that I have covered in depth, but I do think it speaks to this tension that we are seeing literally across the city, which is the desire to build and to develop, and that's juxtaposed with this squeeze on housing and particularly affordable housing. In this case, I think people want to see new developments go up, but they also want to make sure that they can stay in their neighborhoods. You hear that debate playing out with incumbent lawmakers, and then also people who were looking to unseat them talking about, if we don't settle for something, we end up with nothing.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, if you're just joining us, we're going back and forth in this segment between talking about Primary Day in New York with our Senior Politics reporter Brigid Bergin and going down some of the interesting races and some of the races that could be interesting if you knew what the heck they meant like delegate to the judicial convention. We actually have a candidate for that calling in who we'll go to in a minute. Richard in Manhattan, be patient, we'll get to you. We're going back and forth between following New York Primary Day and taking your calls on that, and relaying to you Supreme Court decisions that are being released this morning. I can now guarantee you that we will have Elie Mystal, justice correspondent from The Nation join us a little later in the show because just out now is what is probably the biggest decision of this Supreme Court term. It's in the case called Moore versus Harper. It's about the State of North Carolina wanting to be able to redistrict. Our democracy wonk Brigid Bergin might even have something to say about this because she certainly follows redistricting in New York, but the question is, can a state legislature engage in partisan redistricting without even being reviewed by the state courts? The answer is no, you may not, thank you.

It's a six-to-three decision. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion. That's a big deal. He rejects what they call the independent state legislature theory. From the opinion written by Roberts, "The reasoning we unanimously embraced in Smiley versus Holm commands our continued respect." That was the lower court decision. "Our state legislature may not create congressional districts independently of requirements imposed by the state constitution with respect to the enactment of laws," from the six to three decision written by Justice Roberts.

Brigid, I think, even though you're covering local politics here, in your job, I think you also knew how huge the implications of this case have been. It even relates to January 6th, Trump big lie attempts, and how they could take hold in the future. Remember, Trump was trying to get some of the state legislatures to overturn the election results as certified by the secretaries of state, et cetera. If he had gotten Republican legislatures to go along like he came pretty close to in a few states, even though those results would then be lies, if they were overturned because of partisan preference, that they could not have been reviewed by the state courts if the plaintiffs had won this case.

The plaintiffs didn't win this case, so it means any attempt like that, and any attempt to redistrict along partisan lines can be reviewed to see if the redistricting is consistent with at least the state constitution, can be reviewed in state court. This is a little wonky in and of itself for people who haven't heard this before, but Brigid, this is huge, right?

Brigid Bergin: This is enormous. I can't wait to hear Elie Mystal when he's on later talking about it because this is certainly something that a lot of pro-democracy people were very concerned about. As you said, this would really throw out an essential check on how our districts are drawn, and empower state legislatures in a way that our friends over at the Brennan Center have referred to as a dubious legal theory. I think it is probably to many folks both a relief and maybe somewhat of a surprise, but certainly reassuring for the sake of-- We live to fight another day, that this decision rule, that that is not something that can happen, that in fact, state courts will have a final say.

We think about it even in the context of our own redistricting that we went through last year in New York. The state legislature, after the state's independent redistricting commission drew lines, couldn't come up with an agreement. It went to the state legislature. Then it was challenged, and then a court ordered a monitor to redraw those lines. Some people don't like those lines, but it did serve as a check, and it was held against our state constitution and had this ruling gone the other way. There might not be that option.

I think it is something, particularly for states where we know that there has been a lot of money spent to influence the composition of those state legislatures, and that those state legislatures tend to be very partisan, and perhaps could be swayed by an argument like the former presidents to take action in an election, like a presidential election to throw out the view of the voters and in fact, take a different decision. This is now saying that that is not something that can happen. It is an important decision, particularly going into a presidential election year next year.

Brian Lehrer: Absolutely right. You use one of the words that I was going to use and that is relief. This is going to be a big sigh of relief for advocates of honest elections. Again, listeners, we're going to get more on this and the so-called true threats ruling that we mentioned before. There may be more to come down now. We're still waiting affirmative action, student loans. We'll see. Oh, and I'm just told no more today. I guess the next day will be Thursday. Is that right? Thursday? Yes, Thursday for more Supreme Court decision. Come back at this time on Thursday, but don't go away yet.

Interesting that this was a six-to-three decision, which means a few of the, what we consider, conservative justices had to join the liberals. We know John Roberts did because he wrote the opinion. The dissenters were Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. That means Cavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett also voted in the majority to uphold the right of state courts to review redistricting. There you go. Very big decision from the Supreme Court with that coalition. We're going to take a break, and then go back to talking about today's New York primary with Brigid Bergin and your calls. Stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Primary Day in New York with our Senior Politics reporter and resident democracy wonk and elections nerd, Brigid Bergin, and you, electioneering welcome here. It's our informal, unofficial, thoroughly unscientific primary day exit poll. Who are you voting for in any race? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 call or text. Let's go next to District 9 in Harlem. Arguably the most interesting race anywhere in the state today. This is an open city council seat. It's made news for one of the candidates, Yusef Salaam, who was a member of the exonerated five, formerly the Central Park Five, whose story is pretty well known at this point, wrongly convicted of a rape of a jogger in Central Park in 1989.

That's not to say he's the best candidate or that he's not the best candidate, but his place in history is certainly notable. He's continued to be involved in incarceration issues like being on the board of the Innocence Project I read, which is all about exonerating wrongfully convicted people. It's drawing attention, rightly so, that he's in the race, but Brigid, who is the competition?

Brigid Bergin: The competition is stiff. He has two sitting assembly members Inez Dickens and Al Taylor as his competitors. These are individuals with very close ties to this district and this neighborhood. Inez Dickens was a city council member before she became an assembly member. She is very close to the political establishment in Harlem. She has the endorsement of Mayor Adams who she also endorsed in 2021. She has the endorsement of former Congressman Charles Rangel, Congressman Adriano Espaillat, people who are part of the fabric of the political establishment in Harlem.

In this race, what is interesting is we're starting to see candidates start to consider how ranked-choice voting may change the results because Al Taylor, who is also currently serving in the assembly, has co-endorsed Yusef Salaam in this race. If you're going to rank Yusef Salaam your number one, Al Taylor wants to be your number two, and vice versa. That strategy is very interesting. Al Taylor is apparently saying this to really all voters, and so if he manages to emerge as the victor, it may be a lesson to voters that that is a strategy that is effective going forward. I think at this point, we haven't seen a ton of people really trying to use ranked-choice voting to that end, but what it's supposed to do is then allow candidates to go out there and campaign with each other as opposed to just against each other.

Brian Lehrer: There are a few more districts we'll get to, but I mentioned in the intro way back at the top of the hour that there are some races that people may see on their primary day ballots that make most people's eyes glaze over. County committee member is one of them. Also, delegate to the judicial convention. I've seen both of these on at least one Manhattan ballot in the last week, and most people don't even know what those jobs are. We happen to have a candidate for delegate to the judicial convention calling in. Richard on the west side of Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, Richard.

Richard Gottfried: Well, good morning. I'm Richard Gottfried, now retired assembly member.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, you're Richard Gottfried. Oh, my God. Legendary state senator.

Richard Gottfried: I'm assembly member, yes, 52 years in the assembly.

Brian Lehrer: Assembly, I'm sorry. The head of the health committee. You've been the big advocate for Medicare for all, system for New York State, other things. Good. You're a great person to explain to everybody else. What does a delegate to the Judicial Convention do?

Richard Gottfried: In New York State, judges of what is called the state Supreme Court, it's not really an appellate court in New York, it's our basic trial court. Those judges are nominated. The Democratic and Republican Party candidates for those judges are nominated in judicial nominating conventions, and the delegates to those conventions are elected within each assembly district. I am one of a slate of 13 people running for delegate and 13 people running for alternate in what used to be my assembly district in Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen and a little of the Upper West Side.

Brian Lehrer: How about that? You're keeping your hand in the civic space, even having retired from the assembly.

Richard Gottfried: Yes. Some addictions are hard to break.

Brian Lehrer: For people who may want to run in the future, how much time does it take to do that job?

Richard Gottfried: To be a judicial delegate?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Richard Gottfried: The Judicial Nominating Convention meets sometime in the summer. The meeting runs about usually two or three hours, and that's it. Also, with you're judicial delegate, you will get lobbied by a bunch of candidates for state Supreme Court who want to tell you about their qualifications.

Brian Lehrer: Right. You have to otherwise learn about them, too. That would be some of the time involved, right?

Richard Gottfried: Sure. If you're conscientious about doing your job. Yes.

Brian Lehrer: You're a good person to ask one of the things that I wonder about often then, and this is what a wonk I am that I even wonder about this often. Is there any good way to select a judge? Because it seems to me that this, what you're describing, what you're now running to be part of, is a very flawed system. It's a small group of party insiders who might have self-interested reasons to get certain people into these judicial positions. The public never has any say about it. Except maybe electing these judicial delegates, like what you're running to be, but nobody knows what that is when they see it on their primary day ballot and generally skip over it or judges can be appointed. We see that at the level of US Supreme Court or whatever, and that's imperfect, too. Is there any good way to name a judge in your opinion?

Richard Gottfried: I think a better way is the method we use for putting judges on the state court of appeals and on all the federal courts, which is the governor nominates candidates for the court of appeals. They are then confirmed or not confirmed by the state Senate, similar to the way federal judges from the federal district court up to the Supreme Court are chosen, nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate. I think that's a better mechanism than what we use for our lower court judges in New York, which is an election. You're right, voters have a very hard time making any judgment about the candidates for the bench.

Political party leaders have an enormous influence over those candidacies in most parts of the state. Here in Manhattan, for several decades, by Democratic Party rule, we've got a process in which independent selection screening panels that are made up of people appointed by a variety of bar associations and other civic groups that rate candidates for the bench in Manhattan. The Democratic Party in Manhattan has, for decades now, limited itself to only supporting candidates who are approved in that screening process. Judicial elections in Manhattan are better than they used to be, and better than in most parts of the state.

I think appointment by the governor or the mayor or the president with ratification by the legislature or the city council or Congress is a better system. None of them is perfect, but I think appointment is a better system.

Brian Lehrer: Richard Gottfried, I think you probably know our Senior Politics reporter, Brigid Bergin, or at least know of her. Brigid, do you want to ask the former assemblyman, now candidate for judicial delegate a question?

Brigid Bergin: I am curious, assembly member. Part of the reason you are on the ballot for this primary is because you are running with a slate of candidates that's being challenged by another slate of candidates. If I understand correctly, it looks like Corey Johnson and Mark Green are part of the other slate that's running against you.

Richard Gottfried: Right.

Brigid Bergin: I was wondering, for voters, how do they determine what the difference is or does it just end up becoming an issue of name recognition?

Richard Gottfried: Name recognition is a lot of it. The slate that I'm running on is supported by a local democratic club called the Hell's Kitchen Democrats, which is a relatively new democratic club that formed in the aftermath of the Trump election. Local residents who wanted to work together to express the progressive values and diversity of our neighborhood. That's the slate that I'm on. You're right, it is hard for voters to look at those slates and figure out who's who, which is, again, partly why I would prefer a system of appointment by the governor and confirmation by the state Senate.

Brian Lehrer: Really interesting. [crosstalk] Let me leave it there. Go ahead, make one more quick thought, then I want to get to a few other things with Brigid before we run out of time on this primary day. Go ahead and make one last point.

Richard Gottfried: The Supreme Court decision today about judicial review of legislators is a wonderful decision. I devoted my entire working life to the state legislature in New York, but the proposition that the courts ultimately interpret the constitution and interpret statutes goes back to Marbury versus Madison and is a fundamental proposition of American government. I'm relieved that the Supreme Court has confirmed that.

Brian Lehrer: I'm glad you called. We had the privilege of your commentary on that breaking news from the Supreme Court and also to have you explain Delegate to the Judicial Convention a little bit, which people will see on their ballots in some districts today, and talk about your opinions on the best way to name judges. Former assembly member, now retired, Richard Gottfried, but running on the West Side of Manhattan for Delegate to the Judicial Convention. Thanks a lot.

Richard Gottfried: You're welcome. Great to be with you.

Brian Lehrer: [chuckes] That's amazing, Brigid, what you brought up that he's on one slate on the competing slate. You have people like Corey Johnson and Mark Green. It's like Old Timer's Day Yankee Stadium. The giants of the past of politics in New York running to keep their hands in the game a little bit. Of course, they would agree on most things, Richard Gottfried, Mark Green, Corey Johnson but here they are running against each other in the West Side of Manhattan.

Brigid Bergin: Absolutely. To your point, Brian, it really does, I think, raise some questions. We could have a whole other conversation someday about the judicial selection process. Certainly, assembly member Gottfried had some perspective on an appointment system, but I think people do have a lot of questions when they go to do their-- be a good citizen, to turn out, to be engaged and to vote, and then they see names, and they have no idea what these positions are or who these people are. We do our best leading up to an election to describe what the positions are. In the case of county committee, for example, there are hundreds of members of county committee in each of the counties. We're not going to do a deep dive on who each of those individuals are, but the thing that is important, I think, for people to understand is the fact that primary indicates that there's competition, which tends to be a good thing. As the assembly member said, a lot of this does emerge from the club system that still exists across New York and so that's where you see some of these members coming from.

Brian Lehrer: Well, our time has been going by so fast with Richard Gottfried calling in with these breaking decisions from the Supreme Court. Let's just touch briefly on another couple of things for this primary day in New York before we go. The third of the three districts that you identified as particularly competitive is District 43, which runs through Sunset Park, Borough Park, and Bensonhurst. Those are in Brooklyn, obviously. This one also has an incumbent hoping to continue in office. Justin Brannan, who's a leader in the council as head of the finance committee, but like District 1 in lower Manhattan, it's a newly redrawn district. Can you tell us about the new District 43?

Brigid Bergin: Yes. I should clarify, Brian. It makes sense because Brannan has represented District 43, but now he will be technically in District 47. This is a totally open seat. Nobody currently represents the 43. That will be District 43 in the new council.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, I had that wrong so I just want to be really clear to listeners that I had that wrong just now. Justin Brannan is not in this race. He's running in another district as an incumbent, even though his district number has changed just to restate what Brigid just said, so I don't confuse anybody. Sorry. District 43, open seat, who we got?

Brigid Bergin: Open seat. We have a Democratic and a Republican primary. In the Democratic primary there is, and I apologize in advance if I mispronounce any names, but Wai Yee Chan, Stanley Ng, and Susan Zhuang who are the Democrats running. Then on the Republican side, you've got Ying Tan and then Vito LaBella who has been in and around Republican politics in this part of Brooklyn for a while. This district was drawn and really represents the biggest change of the new council districts because if you look at the maps overlaid against each other, this is the biggest change really in the city.

This district just didn't exist as it is drawn now prior to the redistricting process. It was drawn with an Asian majority, and so it's considered an Asian opportunity district. That's part of the reason why I think you are seeing so many candidates of Asian descent running for the seat. Some of the issues that have been coming up there, issues again that we have been hearing across the city, but have their own dimension in this district, public safety, education issues, affordable housing. Whoever wins these primaries will then go on to the general election in November.

This is one of those races that we're going to be watching going forward. Similar to your point, we will be watching District 47 in the general election because while Justin Brannan doesn't have a primary today, he's likely to have a general election since there's a Republican primary there. We will likely see a competitive general election in that race in November.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Currently, there are only six Republicans out of the 51 members of City Council. It is blue New York in that respect. Maybe we've helped increase turnout by two or three votes with this segment. [chuckles] Hope so.

Brigid: Fingers crossed.

Brian Lehrer: Turnout in a primary like this is expected to be very low. It means listeners that your vote matters. If you choose to vote, do a quick last-minute study up on any of these races if you weren't paying attention, or of course, if you were all the way long. Let's end on this. Brigid, you wrote a Gothamist article on a study that showed certain kinds of community group involvement can increase turnout in low-turnout elections like this. Who studied what?

Brigid: This was a study that was done by a group called GoVoteNYC. They were looking at if they could give some small micro-grants to community organizations across the city where those trusted organizations could talk to people and not just explicitly organizations that turn out voters, but organizations that do other things in their community, would that help increase voter turnout? Their study found that among the organizations that were involved, they did find success. Part of the success was talking to people through trusted voices, in their own language, and in a constant contact, not just a flyer that you catch on election day from a candidate who's standing out stumping on a corner, but having a conversation explaining what are these roles, what are you voting for?

What are you doing there? It was a sign potentially a blueprint for some of the work that could happen going forward but a sign that that type of investment does pay off with turnout at the polls, particularly among groups that tend to have lower turnout and lower engagement, potentially because some of these races may be new to them. There may be new immigrant groups, language barriers, other things that might keep people away from the polls. This was looking at ways to break down those barriers.

Brian Lehrer: WNYC and Gothamist Senior Political reporter and elections nerd and democracy wonk, Brigid Bergin. Brigid, thanks so much for all the info. Happy Primary Day.

Brigid: Happy Primary Day, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Much more to come.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.